Tag: civil rights

What The World Needs Now: The “Unnatural” Love Jesus Commands

Brent Pollard

Why Jesus Commanding Love Strikes Us as Odd

There is something that stops us cold when we first read John 15.17. Jesus commands us to love. We instinctively resist this. Love, we have been told since childhood, is something that happens to us—a feeling that comes unbidden or not at all. And yet there it stands in the plain Greek of the New Testament: a command. An imperative. Not a suggestion, not an aspiration—a command.

The love Jesus commands does not bubble up from the wellspring of natural affection. It does not depend on the worthiness of its object. It is a love that originates not in the heart but in the will. This is what makes it unnatural—not aberrant or disordered, but swimming against the powerful current of a fallen nature that has always reserved its warmth for those who return it.

What Made Jesus’ New Commandment Truly New

The Jews of Jesus’ day already had a command to love their neighbors (Leviticus 19.18). But centuries of theological trimming had quietly reduced the definition of “neighbor” to a comfortable radius of like-minded, like-blooded individuals. This is precisely why Jesus told the Parable of the Good Samaritan (Luke 10.25–37)—a story so deliberately unsettling that it practically demanded a verdict.

Then, in the upper room on the night of His betrayal, Jesus issued a new commandment: “Love one another, even as I have loved you” (John 13.34, NASB95). The newness lay in its standard and scope. The measure of this love was no longer the mirror of self—it was the cross. And the cross looks like a man hanging between criminals, praying, “Father, forgive them; for they do not know what they are doing” (Luke 22.34, NASB95). That is the standard.

Agapē Love: What the Greek New Testament Reveals About Loving Like Christ

Koine Greek—the common tongue of the first-century world—distinguished at least four varieties of what we flatten into one English word. Phileō was friendly affection. Storgē was a family bond. Erōs was romantic desire. And rising above them all stood agapē—sacrificial, unconditional, self-emptying love. Kindness is extended when kindness is not deserved. Forgiveness is given when the wound is still fresh. Service rendered without expectation of return.

You do not feel your way into agapē. You choose your way into it. The natural loves are genuine goods, gifts from God’s hand—but left unchecked, they curl inward. The love of family becomes contempt for the stranger. The tribe’s love becomes hatred of the outsider. Agapē redeems and elevates these natural loves, rightly orienting them. It is not human morality at its finest—it is participation in the divine nature, the love of God shed abroad in human hearts by the Holy Spirit (Romans 5.5). You cannot manufacture it. You receive it, and then choose to deploy it.

Agapē, in its fullest sense, is the deliberate choice—empowered by God—to seek another’s genuine good at personal cost, because that is precisely how God in Christ has loved us.

“Othering” in Modern Culture and the Ancient Problem It Represents

Hal David, moved by the turmoil of the Civil Rights Movement and the Vietnam War, wrote words that Jackie DeShannon made famous: “What the world needs now is love, sweet love.” Were David writing today, surveying our present moment, the pen would move with the same urgency.

We live in a time of othering—the process by which human beings made in God’s image are reduced to caricatures and assigned to an outgroup whose humanity can be safely disregarded. The Nazis did not begin with gas chambers. They began with names, with the slow rhetorical work of placing people outside the boundaries of moral concern. Today, the preferred weapons are different—”Nazi,” “fascist,” “bootlicker,” “communist”—but the intent is identical: to frame opponents as a them against whom any response is justified. The summer of 2020 saw politically motivated murders amid the George Floyd protests. January 2026 has already recorded two deaths connected to ICE enforcement protests. Solomon was right—there is nothing new under the sun (Ecclesiastes 1.9). Human fallenness finds new costumes for old sins.

How the Cross Teaches Christians to Love Their Enemies

The command of Jesus is not an antiquarian curiosity. It is addressed to this fractured, furious moment. The temptation—and we should name it honestly as a temptation—is to reserve our warmth for the in-group and feel entirely justified in our contempt for ideological enemies. But the One commanding our love is the same One who prayed forgiveness over the men who drove the nails.

The decision to love precedes the feeling of love. We choose to pray for those who despise us. We choose to speak with dignity about those whose politics make our blood simmer. And grace, practiced in genuine submission to God’s Spirit, reshapes not just our behavior but our hearts.

Jesus said the watching world would know His disciples not by their doctrinal precision or political affiliations, but by their love for one another (John 13.35). The church, in an age of othering and outrage, is called to be a visible demonstration that another way is possible—that the love of God in Christ is not a theological abstraction but a living reality.

The command is given.

The standard is the cross.

The power is the Spirit.

And the world is watching.

Women’s Role Isn’t The Issue

Neal Pollard

Anecdotal and emotional appeals are made. Expressions of dissatisfaction with how things are “done in churches of Christ” and anxious concerns that we are in the minority seem to ignore something much more significant. What does the Bible say?

A preacher recently wrote, “I wonder how many of our members are as dumbfounded as many of our ministers about our current practices with women in our churches, but have allowed fear and caution to keep them silent as our practices remain the same. Is it groupthink? Do we have well thought out theologies supporting our current practices? Do most of us realize the oddity of our male dominated services in 21st century society? Perhaps there are more who want to ask these questions than we sometimes imagine.”

In an age when women have been allowed by society to ascend all the way to the top of the corporate ladder, assuming the heads of companies, the fields of medicine, science, politics, and education, it may seem odd to some that she does not lead singing, lead prayers, “preside” over or serve the Lord’s Supper, preach, or serve as an elder or deacon in mainstream churches of Christ. Is this a civil rights issue? Is it a cultural issue? Exactly what is the issue?

The reason that those certain preachers feel “there comes a time that silence must give way to words and actions” seems bigger than a single issue. The reason has to do with a basic approach to the Bible and an attitude toward what it is and how it serves today. If the issue was simply what the Bible has to say, the issue would be an open and shut case. In 1 Timothy 3:15, Paul tells Timothy he is writing that letter “so that you will know how one ought to conduct himself in the household of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and support of the truth.” This follows a “household of God” matter already mentioned by Paul in 1 Timothy 2:8- 15. Amid a discussion of women’s role, Paul says, “A woman must quietly receive instruction with entire submissiveness. But I do not allow a woman to teach or exercise authority over a man, but to remain quiet” (11-12). The reason he gives is not tied to first century culture. As Timothy was the preacher at Ephesus and was half-Greek himself, Paul did not appeal to ethnicity. He goes back to the creation, a different time, place, and ethnicity. Cultural practice or norm was not the issue.

Here is the issue. What is our attitude toward the Bible? Is it God-breathed, equipping man for every good work (2 Tim. 3:16-17)? Is the God who created each of us, our world, and the universe, with every amazing intricacy of design, smart enough and powerful enough to successfully communicate to man in written form in a way that would stand the tests of time, transmission (making copies from original documents), and translating it into different languages? Certainly, man would be incapable of this, but dare we say that God did not do this? Especially should we be careful when the Bible claims over and over again that God did communicate through inspired men.

If scripture is not reliable as the standard of religious authority and does not contain an established pattern for teaching and practice, so many other matters are up for grabs–the institution of marriage as it is, homosexuality, abortion, calling our Creator “Jehovah” rather than “Allah,” the Deity, atonement, and resurrection of Christ, and the list is truly inexhaustible. On what grounds do we reject clear teaching on women’s role in churches of Christ while accepting that there is no way to the Father but through Christ? Beware! This is bigger than a single issue. One’s attitude toward the inspiration and authority of scripture is the real, underlying issue!

Let The World Be The World And The Church Be Different

Monday’s Column: Neal At The Cross

Neal Pollard

Many of us were startled by an automatic alert sent to our phones last Saturday morning, alerting us of potential violence and danger in our usually serene city. The reason was a planned protest and counterprotest, a racially-charged event centering on a horrible incident that happened almost seventy years ago in another state. Predictably, it stirred up some division and exposed extreme and racially-prejudiced views from some.

The world prefers to keep people divided on the basis of race, gender, political affiliation, and the like, and uses such tools as identity politics (Brittanica defines this as “political or social activity by or on behalf of a racial, ethnic, cultural, religious, gender, or other group, usually undertaken with the goal of rectifying injustices suffered by group members because of differences or conflicts between their particular identity or misconceptions of their particular identity and the dominant identity or identities of a larger society”) and tribal alliances. Subject to human biases, emotions, and subjectivism, easy to misjudge and assume others’ motives and intentions, it becomes a massive roadblock to oneness and unity.

But we would expect no less from the world. Who is the prince and ruler of this world? He is a murderer (John 8:44), a devourer (1 Pet. 5:8), a sinner (1 Jn. 3:8), and a deceiver (2 Co. 11:3,14). Chaos, disorder, and division serve his purposes quite effectively.

In the midst of such mayhem, the Lord has the church in this world to be a beacon and light (Mat. 5:13-16). What an opportunity we have in the midst of the world’s divisiveness to show a people united on the foundation of truth, regardless of our race, background, education level, economic strata, or any other way the world wants to divide us. We won’t compromise the eternal truth of God’s Word, but we will stand together on that even however difficult or unpopular. We will live by 1 Corinthians 1:10, “Now I exhort you, brethren, by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that you all agree and that there be no divisions among you, but that you be made complete in the same mind and in the same judgment.” We will honor His objective and follow His blueprint to achieve it.

When an onlooking world gets a glimpse of us in action, red, yellow, black, and white, working in love, harmony, and acceptance of one another, they will find an alternative to the world’s hate. When they see the poor esteemed and accepted as much as the well-to-do (Js. 2:1-8), they will see a bright alternative to a cold, status-conscious world. If the church will be the church, we can help the world–one searching person at a time. But the world will always be the world. We should not expect them to show us the way to be one. Their ruler wants chaos. Ours wants peace.

Of One Blood

Neal Pollard

The NHS (National Health Service of Great Britain) says, “Blood is made up of red blood cells, white blood cells and platelets in a liquid called plasma. Your blood group is identified by antibodies and antigens in the blood” (nhs.uk). There are eight blood types among human beings in the world. In most countries, more people have either [A+] or [O+], although a few countries have more [B+] blood types. But the type of blood a person has is not specific to a race. [O-] blood types can give to all blood types, and [AB+] blood types can receive from all blood types. Most blood types can give to and receive from more than one blood type. You may not think much about your blood type, but it matters to you when you need a transfusion. It matters to everyone when you donate blood. 

In Paul’s incredible sermon in Athens, he cites a scientific truth now accepted by all science. He says that God “made of one blood all nations of men for to dwell on all the face of the earth” (Acts 17:26). While the word translated “blood” is found in the Greek New Testament, modern translations do not have that original word in the text. Instead, it has literally “He made from one (“man” inserted by translators) every nation of mankind…” (NASB, ESV, ) or “he made of one every nation of men” (ASV). This produces no great tension between versions. Science tells us that blood type is determined by genetics, so the same conclusion can be drawn from either rendering. Humanity is bound together by something that transcends racial barriers. In fact, all mankind–regardless of race–is related. God saw to that by the creating us all from the same person. He designed the human body, whatever skin color or ethnicity, to survive through the same vital substance (Lev. 17:11)–blood! 

We live in a world that desperately wants to divide us by political party, nationality, skin color, gender, and a thousand subcategories. Division is worldly minded and contrary to God’s Spirit (Jude 19). I find it incredible how God reminds us, even in Paul’s subtle phrase in an apologetics lesson, that He desires us to be united according to His will. What matters to Him is not measured by such superficial, external things as race. It is the content of character. Most of all, it’s the blood of His Son!

kids-race.jpg

KING’S CRITERIA WERE RIGHT ON THE MARK

Neal Pollard

Martin Luther King, Jr., gave his “I Have A Dream” speech on a seasonable and rain-free day in August of 1963, but this speech, delivered to at least 250,000 people, is often remembered on the holiday in January named for him. This speech is one of the most important documents of our nation’s history and was a watershed moment in improving race relationships between black and white Americans.  Eloquently and poetically pointing out the injustices his race of people had endured and were enduring at the time, King looked forward to a new and improved day.  He hoped all people, whatever their race, would “not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character.” He hoped to leave Washington, D.C., and return back to his home with a faith in the powers that ruled nationally and locally which would be translated into hope, brotherhood, and unity. His final call was to “let freedom ring” (via http://www.archives.gov/press/exhibits/dream-speech.pdf).

Many people forget that Mr. King was a religious man, a preacher who often alluded to Bible characters and principles as well as directly quoting from it.  Inasmuch as he accurately referenced it, Mr. King was calling all people to God for guidance regarding right and wrong.  He said that character took priority over color.  He saw unity as right and division as wrong. He called for freedom rather than slavery, real or virtual.  While he was rightly championing these characteristics in the realm of racial equality, those principles doggedly stand regarding other matters.  Character, unity, and freedom matter in religious matters.

When we stand before Christ in the judgment, there is no indication that He will even take note of our race, ethnicity, or nationality.  He will look to see if His blood covers us.  Peter rightly says, “I most certainly understand that God is not one to show partiality, but in every nation the man who fears Him and does what is right is welcome to Him” (Acts 10:34b-35). Corrupt behavior or disobedience will not be acceptable, no matter who we are.

Furthermore, anyone who fosters division is rejected by God. He hates “one who spreads strife among brothers” (Prov. 6:19). He condemns it through Paul in 1 Corinthians 1:10-13.  In social or spiritual matters, I don’t want to be responsible for inhibiting a brotherhood God desires.  If I refuse to stand where He stands or if I stand where He doesn’t want me to stand, He will not accept it.

Finally, there is a freedom even more important than the noble cause King and his followers pursued. They wanted loosed from the manacles of a bondage imposed by others.  All of us, outside of Christ, are subject to a bondage we cause for ourselves.  Paul refers to this as being “slaves of sin” and “slaves to impurity and to lawlessness” (Rom. 6:17,19).  But, thank God, we can be “freed from sin” (Rom. 6:18). Then, we become slaves to righteousness.

Christians must care about racial equality, never treating someone different because of the color of their skin.  The way to right content of character, unity, and freedom is found in the book so often quoted by Mr. King.  No matter where or when we live, it will guide us toward an eternal home in heaven.